We have found our next entertainer for the bitcoin speculation subforum that will replace our favorite bitcoin bull Tom Lee hehehe. Vinny Lingham is known for his bearish attitude on bitcoin during 2017 when everyone was hyperbullish. He also declared that he sold all his bitcoins on $1250 in that year, I reckon.  Vinny Lingham, CEO of Civic, while discussing what is next for the Bitcoin price with CNBC’s Crypto Trader Ran Neuner noted that he is still not convinced the crypto winter market is over. Vinny still expects the bitcoin price to hold a particular level before he’s ready to concede that the bears have lost control.
Vinny explained that “I’m not buying any bounce right now that doesn’t go to around $6,200 and stays there for at least 24-48 hours as being the end of the bear market cycle.”
Also, Vinny like most crypto enthusiasts concedes that the bitcoin price is near the bottom of the bear market cycle. However, it could have more bouncing to go. His assertion is based on history that bitcoin hasn’t escaped a bear market until the price is two times higher than the bottom. Hence, the current circle could still fall below the mark of $3,100, and $6,200 mark is the clear coast of the bull run. Vinny stated that “There’s absolutely a chance we could go below $3,000. I don’t think the bear market cycle is necessarily over.”Read in full https://www.btcnn.com/news/vinny-lingham-bitcoin-could-still-crash-below-3000/ |
|
|
|
|
@bigslimvdub. That is a better update than your last state of Aeon. It is also very good to see that you understand the issue and that you have responded well.
Also, Asic resistance is not unsuccesful only to cryptonote coins, but to all cryptocoins.
|
|
|
|
|
@tromp. I reckon they need some feeding or no one would be bumping this thread and increase this project's visibility hehehe. Trolls also give us the opportunity to defend and show everyone what is good about the project.
@Privcy Foundation. Here trolly trolly trolly.
|
|
|
|
Stop grinning, is this really the low? or are you all being fooled?
Maybe. # The cause of a good amount of the dumping is from the miners themselves because it would be safer for them to sell and hold every grin they mine in bitcoin, also because bitcoin holds value much better than grin does.
But isn't that the case for all newborn minable coins? Numbers are nice.  # Grined. Agreed that it might be the case for new minable coins, however, it might take a longer time for grin to become the miners' first choice as a store of value because it is inflationary and also because bitcoin will always store value better than grin until grin has higher demand and a 1% inflation rate. |
|
|
|
Don't want to pour water on anyone but would that still hold true if we used any of the days to calculate? Purely out of curiosity, but I was almost certain w had a week of losses before the 5k spike. Is this also the time to begin listening to Tom Lee's advice again and start looking for a bitcoin bear to make fun hehehe?
I reckon most of us only begin listening when everyone is dumping which ends in losses.
When did we ever start listening to Tom Lee? Someone forgot to tell me, I'm still on the McAfee bandwidth. Was thinking to switch allegiance to Changpeng for a while until he started with that FOMO comment. Pompliano's already taken out the champagne it seems, if his busy Twitter's anything to go by. Why I even know this isn't sad, right? I am certain once upon a time some of us did. I remember posting some Tom Lee bullish articles and ridiculing them on January to March 2018. I got some negative replies from some people. They must be the Tom Lee followers hehehe. |
|
|
|
It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.
lower fees doesn't equate to equal security. if people want to opt for shitcoin security then they'll keep getting 51% attacked as we often see today. bitcoin's level of reliability is unparalleled and i think history shows there is a steady and growing demand for it, even within a sea of altcoins that are cheaper to use. I reckon you should read my thread and try to understand the issue. This is not about the low fees. It is about the opposite. If fees are very high, there might be less people using bitcoin. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5101017.msg49375019#msg49375019"lower fees" refers to "lower fees to use altcoins". that's precisely what you're discussing, is it not? your argument is that high fees will deter usage of bitcoin (in favor of altcoins). i think all evidence so far---such as the positive correlation between price and fees---disagrees with you. i also think your argument doesn't account for the fact that no altcoin can measure up to bitcoin's security and reliability. that's what people are willing to pay much higher fees for. i read your thread and responded there ages ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5101017.msg49493642#msg49493642It disagrees with me right now, yes, however if all the coins have been mined, I reckon it would be time to revisit this issue. Also, I am not questioning bitcoin's reliability. I am discussing bitcoin's monetary policy and how it can sustain its security from fees alone. @BitHodler. I reckon the Lightning Network would be similar to altcoins competing versus bitcoin for transactions. In any case, I would like everyone to read grin's monetary policy. https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Monetary-Policy |
|
|
|
|
Is this also the time to begin listening to Tom Lee's advice again and start looking for a bitcoin bear to make fun hehehe?
I reckon most of us only begin listening when everyone is dumping which ends in losses.
|
|
|
|
|
@LTU_b, @slocker. I would then speculate that Sebastian might make the transfer to Mercedes. However, with the new engine specifications beginning on 2021, he might be driving for only the 2nd fastest car again hehehehe.
|
|
|
|
Is the basic research knowing that the miners will be paid 100% in transaction fees when all the coins eventually are mined? Some argue that it is sustainable because miners can choose which transactions they want to include in the block.
It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.
Bitcoin also have a second layer solution that competes with other Alt coins with lower fees and it is called the Lightning Network.  Bitcoin developers are not sitting on their hands, waiting for other Alt coins to take it's crown, they are constantly adding new features to compete with these coins. Bitcoin miners have two options to generate a income now, 1. Mining for the Block rewards and also transaction fees, 2. Hosting a LN node and gaining some small income from that too.  However the Lightning Network also competes versus the miners for fees. It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.
lower fees doesn't equate to equal security. if people want to opt for shitcoin security then they'll keep getting 51% attacked as we often see today. bitcoin's level of reliability is unparalleled and i think history shows there is a steady and growing demand for it, even within a sea of altcoins that are cheaper to use. I reckon you should read my thread and try to understand the issue. This is not about the low fees. It is about the opposite. If fees are very high, there might be less people using bitcoin. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5101017.msg49375019#msg49375019@Betwrong. In your fictional example no one wants to hold the other coin. That is not what occurs in our world, however. In any case, part of why I am asking and arguing is because of grin's monetary policy. Tail emission may be required for long term stability
Currencies with set supply are extremely experimental. Miners likely need incentives to secure the chain beyond only fees. Note: currency deflation is historically not a good thing.
Sound money has more to do with transparent emission than a capped supply
One of the pitfalls of monetary inflation in fiat currencies is governments can inflate the monetary supply on a whim. This has been used to disastrous effect throughout history. A non-sovereign, open source, consensus based currency solves this issue by making the emission policy well known ahead of time, and makes it difficult if not impossible to change. Based on this definition of soundness, Grin is just as much "sound money" as Bitcoin. Removing central authorities with arbitrary control is much more what makes Bitcoin important than the arbitrary amount of its capped supply.
Nick Szabo commented on Bitcoin's fixed supply that "a wide variety of supply algos would have worked, as long as they are predictable. […] Security/trust min[imization] is responsible for more of the value".https://github.com/mimblewimble/docs/wiki/Monetary-Policy |
|
|
|
|
Also, grin's monetary policy is something worth anticipating in 10 years from a cryptoeconomics perspective. It might have the answers if bitcoin begins to have problems on the sustainability of its security from mining fees alone.
|
|
|
|
Also, Max has improved much more than Dustin since 7 years ago, I reckon. He is the featherweight champion. Dustin might not attain what Max has attained if he remained on featherweight.
Even though Max is the champion it only gives Dustin something to prove and this is his chance to became a champion also. I don't doubt the ability of Poirier he is good and he can definitely beat Max for the interim title. Agreed. However, Max has improved more and has a higher chance of winning this, I reckon. Max will take this fight to the 4th and 5th rounds and take Dustin's cardio to the limit. |
|
|
|
I've been waiting for their rematch and finally, it has come. Its been a long since they first fought and back then they were so young. I think Poirier will beat Max again but this time it's a K.O, unlike a submission win when he first fought Max.
However, you should consider that their fight was 7 years ago and Max was only a replacement fighter for Dustin Poirier. Also, Max has improved much more than Dustin since 7 years ago, I reckon. He is the featherweight champion. Dustin might not attain what Max has attained if he remained on featherweight. |
|
|
|
I reckon many of us might not be ready to accept that the bitcoin bull is slowly coming back. However, how high should bitcoin be to convince us that Tom Lee is correct this time? $10k? $20k?
Would it be bad to speculate and buy bitcoins today?
For me personally there is no doubt that bitcoin has tremendous potential and that bear market must reach its end, but I'm not sure this is happening right now. I think it's very wrong to take opinion of person such is Tom Lee, as a reference point when to buy bitcoin. It looks like most do not read posts or a article, he is saying that bitcoin price should be 14 000$ based on number of wallets. Is this someone who we should trust, do you trust him? If you believe in bitcoin, time for investment was at 3000$, now smart buyers take profits and you think about whether Tom Lee is right this time or not. He might be trying to connect the no. of wallets and demand. He might also be using his bitcoin misery index on assessing where to buy, where the price should be and where to dump. In any case, we know he is very far from where he is planning to dump hehehe. |
|
|
|
|
Is the basic research knowing that the miners will be paid 100% in transaction fees when all the coins eventually are mined? Some argue that it is sustainable because miners can choose which transactions they want to include in the block.
It is the fee market argument. It will work if there was only one coin. However, the people who argue for it refuse to acknowledge that there are other cryptcoins that are competing for lower fees in the fee market.
|
|
|
|
|
I reckon many of us might not be ready to accept that the bitcoin bull is slowly coming back. However, how high should bitcoin be to convince us that Tom Lee is correct this time? $10k? $20k?
Would it be bad to speculate and buy bitcoins today?
|
|
|
|
|
@Carlton Banks. For the reason that bitcoin's security being sustained by the fee market alone is still arguable and will continue to be arguable.
Do you reckon that bitcoin can sustain itself from fees alone forever? Your answer does not matter because it will be arguably wrong or arguably correct. But arguable nonetheless.
That is why you did good by escaping and refusing to answer a question that has riddled everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
@Ronnie. Thank you!
There are some betting opportunities in the characters to die first category that I reckon the sportsbooks might have them wrong hehehe.
Who will die first? If no one dies between them, your bet is a push and the bitcoins will be back in your account.
Daenarys 2.43
or
Cersei 1.47
Tyrion 3.75
or
Jaime 1.21
The Hound - 3.84
or
The Mountain - 1.20
Gilly - 1.09
or
Hot Pie 5.66
All my bets are for the underdogs.
|
|
|
|
Why don't you explain him what your perspective on this matter is?
Because I know from experience that it's a long discussion, and I don't want to have the same conversation again Why not ask the 'what if someone starts guessing private keys? why can't they just do that?' question. same category IMO Agreed, I also understand why you do not want to go on another deep discussion on an old issue. However, it is an issue that has never found a solution and the questions about its sustainability will certainly return. Also, the issue is not in the same category as asking what if someone starts guessing private keys. That is a silly comparison. |
|
|
|
Is Tom Lee's outlook correct? Should bitcoin be priced on $14,000? Also, observe how, according to the article, that Tom Lee has expressed doubt if $14,000 is attainable for 2019. That might be a delicate signal that bitcoin might attain $14,000 this year hehehehe.  Prominent Bitcoin bull and Fundstrat Founder Tom Lee has mentioned during a CNBC Squawk Box program earlier today that Bitcoin is way below its ideal value. He said Bitcoin is only trading at 40% of its actual price despite the price surge experienced in the last few days.
Many have tried to explain the surge with Bloomberg saying it is due to the April Fool’s joke that the SEC approved Bitwise and VanEck ETF applications. Lee, however, thinks differently:
“Finally, we had a big move on Apr. 1. It wasn’t clear what caused it, but it was a shred of real evidence that there is a lot of dry powder, The crypto community kept a lot of cash and was waiting for Bitcoin to break $3,000.”
Although he believes $14,000 is the right price for Bitcoin right now, Lee expressed doubt that the price is attainable by the end of 2019. The bull run is still early and so is the year, and from every indication, the surge is still brewing with a potential to amass more gains in the next few weeks. Hopefully, Tom Lee’s “ideal” price will become a reality eventually.Read in full https://zycrypto.com/bitcoin-bull-tom-lee-says-bitcoin-should-be-valued-at-14000/ |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
